Trains.com

The HyperLoop- what goes around comes around

4163 views
24 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Brecksville Ohio
  • 266 posts
The HyperLoop- what goes around comes around
Posted by rluke on Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:45 PM

Appoligies if this has been discussed before.- 

1841- British engineer Isambard Brunel built and atmospheric railway. (The South Devon Railway). Trains were pushed along by a long piston enclosed in a cast iron tube that ran along the middle of the track. The vacuum was created by stationary pump houses.  (a)

 This actually worked and was in revenue service. The problem was in maintaining the leather seal that kept the air out of the slot that accomodated the connector from the piston to the train. This was converted to use locomotives the next year but it was an innvention ahead of it's time. This makes me think of Elon Musks hyperloop and what kind of unexpeted issues he will face.

(a) Credit:  Smithsonian Train- The Definitive Visual History  CR 2014

Rich
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, August 11, 2016 8:42 PM

   I can't help thinking about the pneumatic tubes used at the drive-through windows at banks or department stores over half a century ago when I read about hyperloop.   There's a book published in 1884 that describes "Atmospheric Railways" that you might be interested in.   It's "Wonders & Curiosities Of the Railway" by William Kennedy.

https://ia902609.us.archive.org/18/items/wondersandcurio01kenngoog/wondersandcurio01kenngoog.pdf

If you load it with PDF and go to book page 120 (about PDF page 153), about the middle of the page is a discussion of them.

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, August 12, 2016 7:06 AM

I've read that, unlike pneumatic tubes, the hyperloop does not handle curves very well, if at all.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, August 12, 2016 11:16 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit

CSSHEGEWISCH
I've read that, unlike pneumatic tubes, the hyperloop does not handle curves very well, if at all.

Exactly. All the propenents of hyperloop telling tales about how much cheaper it is than HSR are wrong. Shoehorning a route with much wider vertical and horizontal curves into the same landscape inevitably raises costs.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:12 PM

Take a look at the proposed speeds of the Hyperloop. The airline industry are the ones to be worried. HSR doesn't exist, and probably never will to any extent in the US.

If the Hyperloop proves to be viable, it will draw private investment capital. The only source of capital HSR has to go after is the taxpayer. 

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:22 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

I've read that, unlike pneumatic tubes, the hyperloop does not handle curves very well, if at all.

 

 

I don't think many of us have the subject matter knowledge or scientific aptitude to make a judgment on the ability of the Hyperloop to handle curves.

All we know is that it runs through a tube, so it can't be seen, and is a boring capsule that doesn't make much noise. Therefore, from a railfan perspective, it must be bad.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Friday, August 12, 2016 4:24 PM

Much of why HSR is more expensive to build than regular lines is because of the greater speed requiring more gradual vertical and horizontal curves to keep interior forces at acceptable levels. If you increase the speed to hyperloop levels, you must increase the diameter of both vertical and horizontal curves. Thus it is far more expensive. Tunnel boring is tremendously costly.

Add in problems with the precision required by high speeds, problems if there are incidents, and it looks almost totally impractical.

Hyperloop is the definition of pipe dream.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Saturday, August 13, 2016 7:42 PM

NorthWest

Much of why HSR is more expensive to build than regular lines is because of the greater speed requiring more gradual vertical and horizontal curves to keep interior forces at acceptable levels. If you increase the speed to hyperloop levels, you must increase the diameter of both vertical and horizontal curves. Thus it is far more expensive. Tunnel boring is tremendously costly.

Add in problems with the precision required by high speeds, problems if there are incidents, and it looks almost totally impractical.

Hyperloop is the definition of pipe dream.

 

At this point, the Hyperloop may well be a pipe dream, time with tell. What is known, is that the current methods of personal intercity transportation in America are dysfunctional, and declining in efficiency. There's been no innovation since the advent of the Interstate Highway System and jet airliner. Something's wrong when I can get a package quicker than I can travel the same distance myself.

I welcome any visionaries, regardless of how far-fetched their ideas may seem. I speak as someone who had rather have a better way to get from point A to point B, than to get my jollies taking pictures of a 200 mph train whiz by. And I do like trains, or I wouldn't be here.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:25 AM

I understand your viewpoint. I just think that this system is like the monorails of the '50s and '60s; the next big thing that never happened. Now that I think of it, there are similar issues with passing and switching.

As the US is a developed nation, I expect that the improvements will be primarily incremental. Much, if not most, of the problem is that population growth has generally outpaced capacity growth and maintenance. It's far easier to fix those problems than raising massive amounts of capital for whole new systems.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, August 14, 2016 2:42 AM

Take a look at this video. The first two minutes is just the Hype. The rest of the video debunks the Hype.

Hyperloop - Busted

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Sunday, August 14, 2016 5:33 AM

Every advancement of technology is accompanied by doubters:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, August 14, 2016 9:16 AM

Rather than build outlandishly expensive transport systems to get from point A to point B; I believe that we are more likely to simply make it unnecessary to travel from point A to point B. 

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • 2,560 posts
Posted by 54light15 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 9:56 AM

What about Alfred Beach's pneumatic subway? A one car train that had a membrane at one end, sealing to the walls of the tunnel and air pressure blew the car down the track. As I understand it, it's still down there under the streets of Manhattan. I'd love to see it.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Sunday, August 14, 2016 10:23 AM

This would be a Vacume Tube- The Problem here is rescuing people in a pod that is stuck in a vacume tube underground. In Space no one can hear you scream

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Sunday, August 14, 2016 1:06 PM

I posted a link to that above. I'd also like to see it, but I think much or most of it was obliterated in the construction of the BMT Broadway Line, whose workers actually found the lost line.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Monday, August 15, 2016 1:00 PM

NorthWest

I understand your viewpoint. I just think that this system is like the monorails of the '50s and '60s; the next big thing that never happened. Now that I think of it, there are similar issues with passing and switching.

As the US is a developed nation, I expect that the improvements will be primarily incremental. Much, if not most, of the problem is that population growth has generally outpaced capacity growth and maintenance. It's far easier to fix those problems than raising massive amounts of capital for whole new systems.

 

A major contributor to the issue is that the established transportation industry is interested in maintaining the status quo. Airlines want to haul passengers between a handful of major hubs. The railroads want to haul freight, and outside of the Northeast Corrider, Amtrak is basically a glorified tourist railroad.

In the past, or at least since the mid-20th century, innovation in transportation has been a side benefit of the defense industry. Those opportunities no longer exist.

Any future innovation, will come from the private sector. In particular, the information technology companies, that can apply the technology to transportation. We're in the infancy of that now.

The elephant in the room is that all new transportation modes require land acquisition in some degree or another. This runs against environmental forces and laws that weren't in place, when we built the current transportation network. One thing we can be thankful for, is what we do have, was largely built before 1970. I doubt it could be built today. 

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Monday, August 15, 2016 1:05 PM

Euclid

Rather than build outlandishly expensive transport systems to get from point A to point B; I believe that we are more likely to simply make it unnecessary to travel from point A to point B. 

 

I agree to a great extent. But business people will always want to shake hands, and families will always want to hug.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Monday, August 15, 2016 7:20 PM

BLS53
The elephant in the room is that all new transportation modes require land acquisition in some degree or another. This runs against environmental forces and laws that weren't in place, when we built the current transportation network. One thing we can be thankful for, is what we do have, was largely built before 1970. I doubt it could be built today.

I'm in full agreement, hence the only incremental improvements. Seeing what has happened to so many projects (EIS and eminent domain lawsuits, etc) has really made me cynical about any major infrustructure expansion, particularly one that will have as large of a footprint as hyperloop. In a crisis, this could change, but we don't ever seem to act before things become a crisis. Complacency will doom us as a nation if we are not careful.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, August 15, 2016 7:54 PM

beaulieu

Take a look at this video. The first two minutes is just the Hype. The rest of the video debunks the Hype.

Hyperloop - Busted

 

That seems quite convincing in explaining the practical problems with hyperloop.  Coping with the large linear expansion and contraction not being absorbed in muliple expansion joints seems farfetched.  Perhaps more farfetched would be the alternative of using thousands of telescoping expansion joints with zero tolerance for any degree of joint failure.  Then there is the problem of the entire tube being warmer on the top side than the bottom side, thus causing a differential in the linear expansion and contraction.  I would say that the whole tube needs to be jacketed in a temperture controlled housing so there would be no expansion and contraction of the tube. 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,148 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:15 PM

And yet, railroads have been dealing with thermal expansion over even longer distances. 

Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 4:49 PM

rrnut282

And yet, railroads have been dealing with thermal expansion over even longer distances. 

 

They have, but their experience includes sun kinks, and pull-aparts.  They can live with that.  The point made in the video debunking above is that the hyperloop cannot risk any breaching of the tube because the consequences would be disasterous.

But you bring up an interesting point.  When rail expands and contracts, the tendancy to change in length can be absorbed by the resiliency of the steel.  It compresses and stretches like a spring.  The person who did the hyperloop video does not account for the expansion and contraction being absorbed in the way it is with rail.  Neither does the hyperloop engineering force. 

The person in the video talks about solving the problem with telescoping slip joints every so many feet.  His main concern is that there would be so many of them and there would be zero tolerance for any gasket or seal failure in the thousands of slip joints.

Then he expresses dismay that the hyperloop designers intend to not use slip joints.  Instead they will use an unloading platform on wheels on each end of the long tube.  That way all of the expansion and contraction is carried all the way to each end of the tube, and the boarding platforms will move the several hundred feet in each direction as the whole tube expands and contracts. 

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: San Francisco East Bay
  • 1,360 posts
Posted by MikeF90 on Sunday, January 29, 2017 4:25 PM

News update - the official SpaceX Hyperloop Pod competition started at about 2pm and is being broadcast live from their Hawthorne, CA 'test track' Now: http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop

I live nearby and attempted to visit, but it is a closed event. The tubular test chamber is very large and impressive to see; it extends almost the entire distance between Prairie Ave and Crenshaw Blvd along the south edge of Jack Northrop Ave.

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 177 posts
Posted by Jim200 on Wednesday, February 1, 2017 4:54 PM

Thanks Mike for the heads up. Here is some more info. WARR from Munich, Germany was the best, followed by Delft from the Netherlands, and then MIT from here. The SpaceX pusher would get them up to about 50 mph, and operation in a partial vacuum and braking ability was tested in the second largest vacuum chamber in the world. Elon Musk is now looking into improving underground tunneling. Perhaps the speed can be improved for further testing in the summer.

 

https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/01/at-spacex-headquarters-27-teams-test-out-half-size-hyperloop-pods/

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 123 posts
Posted by IslandMan on Friday, February 3, 2017 4:25 AM

Phoebe Vet

Every advancement of technology is accompanied by doubters:

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

 

Sometimes however doubters are right.

 

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 123 posts
Posted by IslandMan on Friday, February 3, 2017 4:56 AM

I wonder how many people would actually like to be enclosed in a windowless tube for even a short period? 

There is also the problem that though the Hyperloop may indeed be the quickest way to travel from A to B,  'A' and 'B' will be the ultimate destinations of few, if any, passengers.  Indeed for journeys of a couple of hundred miles or less it might actually take longer to get into and out of the Hyperloop termini than to travel between them!

Think of air travel.  Planes are far faster than trains, buses or automobiles. However because airports are not in the center of cities, and the process of getting on and off planes takes time (especially with additional security measures since 9/11), on short journeys the actual flying time is of limited importance. This is why passenger trains are more important for inter-city travel in Europe (high population density, big cities fairly close together) than they are in the US. The rule of thumb seems to be that if a train can cover the distance between two cities in 3 hours or less rail can compete with airlines on the same route.

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy